The Yassification Of The Queer Movement: An Academic Debate

Ever wonder why students are walking around on Thursday nights in red gowns? They might be heading to Parliament Hall for the Union Debating Society’s weekly debate where red gowns are encouraged but not required. It runs from 7:30 to 9:30pm every week, with the debate starting closer to 8pm. After 9:30pm, you can’t leave (not that you would want to). The first spectators got to indulge in wine until it ran out, and as we entered, we were given pamphlets with the rules and topic of the debate. This week’s debate was This House Regrets Weir on the opposition.

The society was founded in 1794, so it is no surprise they have continued to carry out numerous quirky traditions. Once it was time to begin, the President and others on the committee exited the hall and asked everyone to please rise as their ceremonial sword knocked on the door, and the society walked in to take their seats. It felt like I was in court. The calls and responses happened so fast I couldn’t catch what they were saying, but it seemed like spectators who frequented the debate knew exactly what to do. The debate began with a speech from both the proposition and opposition where they helped define “yassification” and the historical usage of “yas” in gay communities of colour. Although the prompt sounds fun and lighthearted, both sides made incredible points about the exclusion within the queer community versus the immense progress of expression “yassifying” has allowed. 

Once the speeches were done, the floor was opened for anyone to ask questions or make a statement. There were also strict guidelines for this portion: you had to raise your hand, get called on, stand up, and state your name for the minutes. Everyone could take up to three minutes to speak which was longer than usual because it was a one-on-one debate compared to the usual two-versus-two. There was a mini trophy and £15 Toppings voucher for the best speech. I discovered that part of the courtesy was to always applaud after anybody spoke. Many of the statements were impactful because people connected them to their own queer identity. Therefore, they were extremely passionate about their stances and were not afraid to voice their opinions. Meanwhile, the proposition and opposition took notes to later respond to questions directed at their points. 

I thought the opening statements were amazing, but the closing statements were even more impactful and articulate. I believe the closing statement is what changed many people’s votes in the end. After the closing statements, which took between ten to fifteen minutes per side, it was the house’s turn to vote. We raised our hands either for the proposition, opposition, or the abstention (for those who could not choose a winner and which garnered about seven votes). In the end, the proposition won, and it was concluded that “the house does indeed regret the yassification of the queer movements.”

I was extremely inspired by the debate and am now considering going to their introduction training which takes place every Wednesday in the Union from 2pm to 5pm. This debate was particularly passionate because of the sensitive subject, but others are not as personal. For instance, next week the prompt is, “Would you lie to your kids about the existence of Santa?” If you did not want the exciting night to end, all participants were invited to meet up at Beacon Bar to further debate the yassification of queer movements. If you want to learn about something new, or just do not have anything to do on Thursday nights, I would highly recommend attending the Union Debating Society’s weekly events.

Photo: Union Debating Society